In 2006, Ron Paul voted against renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But it had nothing to do with pandering to racist proto-tea baggers, of course. "Junior" Rand Paul had problems with the 1964 Civil Rights Act the other day. The next day, he flim-flammed, flip-flopped and obfuscated. Rand Paul's "confusion" had nothing to do with pandering to racist tea baggers, of course. Rand just needs to iron out the bugs. He should take lessons from Karl Rove, that behind-the-scenes genius who taught "W" how to say "vociferously!"
Lesson: "Paulians" can be against the Iraq War and still seek to deny certain people's constitutional rights. Ayn Randians can be all for ending the drug war, and still give a tacit nod to racially-motivated voter suppression. I can NOT overlook these reprehensible votes father & son cast, for all the "States' Rights" arguments in the world. Anyway, I'd hoped the Civil War of 1861-1865 and the Civil Rights Struggle of 1956-1968 settled the question of Federalism vs. States' Rights once and for all. When it comes to the most basic protections for people who've been discriminated against for ages, the former pretty much trumps the latter. In my estimation.
However, if all one cares about is the Private Enterprise System's unquestioned "right" to make a fast buck - toxic sludge be damned - then either Paul is your guy. Do YOU trust a used Paul?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment